The email sent by Mr Priestly on 2 July followed a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee. At the meeting questions were asked about the independence of a review into NIW, which led to the sackings.

It confirms that he drafted a letter which was later sent to the PAC by one of the review team, Peter Dixon.

Mr Dixon only made two changes to Mr Priestly’s draft. Mr Dixon added a threat of legal action and a line that said that the integrity of the review team had been unfairly called into question. [added emphasis]

Mr Dixon was aggrieved by what he interpreted as unfair comments. He has very limited knowledge of the Assembly’s accountability processes and in particular the work of the PAC. I have now explained all this to him and he wishes me to acknowledge that, in the light of his better understanding, the terms of his letter dated 5th July 2010 are not justified and he wishes to withdraw the letter.[Emphasis added]

Now we are told that Priestly had actually drafted the letter, reportedly at Dixon’s request [Updated. Having listened to Martina Purdy read from the email, the suggestion to write to the Chairman of the PAC came from Priestly who then “had a go” at a draft. Adds – see below] Just a case of “very limited knowledge of the Assembly’s accountability process”?

And what does that fact say about the relationship between Paul Priestly, the Permanent Secretary of DRD, and Peter Dixon, a member of that Independent Review Team?